More than a decade ago, a symposium at the annual Academy of Management
meetings was organized in which several well known scholars discussed the current
state of organizational effectiveness. The symposium highlighted the disarray and
conceptual confusion that surrounded this construct. The discussion occurred at the
height of the scholarly debate over the relative merits of competing models of
organizational effectiveness ( Goodman & Pennings, 1977; Price, 1982). Seven
books and many articles were published on the topic in the late 1970s and early 1980s, most arguing for a particular effectiveness model. None of the competing
models of effectiveness emerged as the dominant perspective, and some writers
became so frustrated by the confusion that they recommended a "moratorium on
all studies of organizational effectiveness, books on organizational effectiveness,
and chapters on organizational effectiveness" ( Goodman, 1979, p. 4).

In 1983, we countered this recommendation by arguing that "despite its chaotic
conceptual condition, organizational effectiveness is not likely to go away"
( Cameron & Whetten, 1983a, p. 1). Three main reasons why effectiveness was
here to stay were presented. First, organizational effectiveness lies at the center
of all models and theories of organizations. That is, all conceptualizations of
organizations include some notion regarding the difference between effective and
ineffective performance. Second, it logically follows that effectiveness is the
ultimate dependent variable in organizational research. Evidence of effective
performance is either assumed or required in most research on organizations.

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.